Talk:Virginia Tech shooting

The Conservative Voice

under other media responses, it notes that the CV claims other school shootings ended abrubtly when armed citizens took action, however going thru the records of all shootings to occur on college campuses, there has only been 1 such case. I think if Wiki is gonna echo this agendaed claim, we must also provide an accurtae portrayl in order to retain credibilty.

The article specifically attributes that quote to CV (though it should attribute it to Platt), and it specifically states that "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen—a potential victim—had a gun." There were two such incidents: the Appalachian School of Law shooting and the Pearl High School shooting. (2 out of 22 is a bit small to be making conclusions, however.) Phony Saint 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is out of those 22 shootings, how many times did a student or faculty member have a gun and face the shooter? It's talking about shootings that were abruptly ended, not shootings in general.

Two of them did, as I said. (Did you look at them?) I took my count from school shootings. Abruptly ending is a vague term, though. Phony Saint 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same vien, the majority of these shootings end 'abrubtly' when the attacker turns the gun on himself. I think there's like another 2 or 3 in which police subdue the assailent. Likewise, I only examined college campus shootings.

You also might want to add

Two of Cho's plays can be found at this url: http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/richard-mcbeef-cover-page/20070417134109990001 209.212.89.242 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

more quotes and refrences from cho's video because i can't edit on this comp

Red Sox played in green jersey's with black VaTech patches to honor the victims of the attacks.

Excerpts from the video message that Cho sent to NBC

"You just loved to crucify me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terror in my heart, ripping my soul."

"Your Mercedes wasn't enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren't enough, you snobs. Your trust fund ... your vodka and cognac wasn't enough. All your debaucheries weren't enough ... to fulfil your hedonistic needs."

"When the time came, I did it. I had to."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2060764,00.html

65.254.5.139 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This would bring more unwanted attention to this sad human being which would have only helped get his point accross. I think the article on him is big enough as it is as well as the media attention. Let's keep it the way it is. CharlieP216 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The comments in the video and the manifesto provide insight into the motive. If we took a moral position not to address the rhetoric of evildoers Wikipedia wouldn't have articles on Hitler or Hussein.TimB 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim and the creator of this section. The above quotes from Cho and more are important quotes that are worth taking from the video to expand upon. The least we should do is post his quotes separately from the article so that people who want to can reference them. -youngidealist68.231.200.13 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that those quotes, or at least some similar to them, should be included. The guy wasn't born nuts, rightly or wrongly he had big issues with people from better off backgrounds whom he felt were mocking and abusing him. This is how he justified what he did to himself.

"This would bring more unwanted attention to this sad human being which would have only helped get his point across"

Which is exactly what must be done. How can we deal with madmen if we don't know what's going on in their heads. Lunatics generally show warning signs or fixate on certain things, it's how we identify them early, and what better way to spot a lunatic than by being aware of their lunacy so that we know it when we see it.

The foreign media is making something of the fact that he felt (rightly or wrongly) that he was outside of the American Dream, and that people inside it were mocking him, so they think that it's important.

perfectblue 09:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please transcribe the full text of the known video clips and put it somewhere (maybe Wikisource)? Readers don't want to go to an external web site and install unwanted software to sit through drivel by a madman, but we might skim. More importantly, right now it is easier to justify this as "fair use" and NBC probably would still be embarrassed to claim copyright on the text (maybe?). Also, the statements that "most" clips were released make me wonder what the rest were about - a scorecard of what's out and what's been suppressed would be nice.204.186.20.241 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Victims section, its existence and contents

The victims of the massacre currently have their own page, which lists them in relative detail, and a small section in this article, which gives their names in a compact form. The victims page is currently undergoing an AfD and there's been a fair bit of seesawing over how they should be covered. I and Yksin figured that talking things out would be much more productive than undoing each other's work, and that a significant change like this should be discussed in peace.

To reiterate myself from user talk, the names of the victims are quite useful to have in the main article. They provide single-click access to those victims with articles - legit ones, I know student victims' articles are getting zapped as we speak, but several faculty members have passed WP:PROF. (The fairly ugly template with these links is losing its TfD and was removed from the article.)

More importantly, it needs to be mentioned that five faculty members were killed, and the victims section accomplishes that efficiently and elegantly, giving the reader more information at a glance than what could be given in the text without greatly disrupting the text flow. Repeated mentions in the text were clumsy and I saw no real way to improve them. And when at least some of the faculty members have proven independently notable, there's no real point in saying that five were killed and not saying who they were, forcing the reader to hunt for that information. --Kizor 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I really think that we can lose the list in the main article. One sentence underneath the link to the list page, giving a basic breakdown of the numbers would be at least as easy to read as an entire list, when determining the number of professors vs. students, if that's something that is important. Further, I think it is perfectly reasonable that a person looking for information on specific victims would go to the list of victims. It just makes sense.Chunky Rice 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also must admit that the way it's currently formatted strikes me as unaesthetic, though I'm willing to give a try at figuring out a better formatting if it turns out the list has to come to the main article. I'm hoping that won't occur, as the article is lengthy as it is & the list looks very good as it is on the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre page -- but we don't yet know how that AfD is going to come out (looks pretty even at the moment.) I hope that someone's got a copy of that article in their sandbox in case it does fail AfD, for the data on it. I already had to revert it once when one of those opposed to a victim list unilaterally blanked the page & turned it into a redirect back to this article. --Yksin 00:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC) -- P.S. I'm not so sure the template is losing its TfD... but I sure hope that if it's kept it's at least removed from the articles of those victims who have their own articles, because it looks truly tasteless & insensitive on those pages, in my opinion. --Yksin 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I'll just reiterate here for the sake of argument. I personally feel that having a separate list for the victims strains the bounds of notability. Being that the size of the list is going to be limited (I doubt it will top 33, and if it does it certainly won't go over 40), there's no chance of it taking over the article. But I find that dropping the list in it's own section in the middle of the article really disrupts the prose and looks rather tacky. Thus, I think we should use a sidebox, ala the Columbine High School massacre and Bath school disaster articles. This will also dis-encourage people from adding crufty, memorial-type information to the list, which can be a concern, and provide a place to link to the professors' articles (4, if I'm not mistaken). As for information in the box, I think it should stick to name, age, faculty position/year in college, and maybe where they were killed. Natalie 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with the tackiness of the list, I wholeheartedly support the previously discussed idea of a sidebox, which would be an unobtrusive and very functional solution. The size of the article is no argument: The section is small and compact, a sidebox would be much the same, and the victims are a very important part of the massacre. If you want to trim, try trimming the monstrous and at points ridiculous response section. (I leave the article alone for one day and it grows to ten times its size... sheesh. :P) --Kizor 01:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the sidebox is an excellent idea, and I'm also in favor of trimming the response section. Most of that stuff is recentism and won't be notable in two months. A line or two of text explaining that other schools held vigils and what not should suffice for the purposes of an encyclopedic article. A Train^talk 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the reaction was identical, and the specifics really have no bearing on an encyclopedia. If we cut that down to a general reaction with a few speciifcs for contents sake then the article will probably be of a readable length. --Jimmi Hugh 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Titanium Dragon 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of notability

Re: "notability," what I've found through the course of the many AfDs emerging from this & related articles is that a whole lotta people don't seem to understand what notability in a WP context even is.

Per WP:NOTE, "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by Wikipedia's guidelines on the reliability of sources and trivia" (emphasis added). So the issue in terms of notability is, "is the subject of the article notable or not" -- not "is every person/place/thing mentioned in the article notable or not", which is covered by the WP:TRIV policy. Now all of us seem to be able to agree that the Virginia Tech shootings is notable enough to warrant an article; most of us agree that a list of victims is non-trivial enough to include in the Virginia Tech article (though there is a vocal group who seems to believe that even this amounts to being "a memorial") -- but the major disagreement seems to be whether the victims list should be contained within the main article, or is large enough to require it to be split off into a subsidiary article, where it is at the moment (& undergoing AfD, its fate at the moment uncertain).

I would suggest that people decide that if they believe a victim list belongs with this article, whether within the main article or on a subsidiary page, that they also come to some consensus as to how much information is needed for each person, & what can be deemed "trivia" or "memorial." For the record, WP:NOT on memorials reads, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." My stand is that while each of the victims was coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family, that does not detract from their notability as a group for being included as a list in this article or as a subsidiary of this article. Although the "lets delete them all" faction will disagree, I continue to believe that WP:NOTE and WP:NOT are both being used incorrectly and spuriously as arguments against retaining a list of victims and basic identifying info about them.

Now I'm going on vacation for a couple of weeks, & while I'll have my laptop, I don't expect to be doing much more than checking in during that time. Good luck. --Yksin 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have an excellent point, Yksin, and I'll start the dicussion off: I think any victims list should be limited to the following: name, age, position at university or year in school, where killed. Nothing more. Natalie 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, would add only place of origin. --Yksin 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

However you look at it a list of dead people cannot stand in its own right! It is not encyclopedia content, it would be an obituary. Of course leaving it on this page is fine as it simply adds points the the main subject. Basic information related to the University will be needed to ensure some level of notability within the article. --Jimmi Hugh 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about it "standing in its own right"? Its importance here is because these of its pertinence to a major historical event. --Yksin 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well actually you did. You mentioned editiing the list for notability whether it was in the main article or a subarticle. I agree it needs editing, but it is a single set of non-notable facts that cannot stand in an article of their own. --Jimmi Hugh 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, but I don't regard a subarticle as "an article of [its] own." Its an article that is created because the main (parent) article has grown so large that there are size considerations, per WP:SIZE. It is a standard practice in Wikipedia for large articles to be broken up into smaller subsidiary articles to they don't mess up the ability to read for individuals who are still on 56K modems, or otherwise have slow connections. And if you were to go back & read my comments in the AfD debates for the Virginia Tech victims list, & the Charles Whitman victims list, you'll see that size of main article is consistently a criteria I use in stating my own opinion on whether such a list should be a subsidiary article or merged into the main article. --Yksin 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As has been noted by more than one person, N is not additive; lumping together a large number of non-notable things is not notable itself. I am one of those who agree that the list of victims is not notable, but that is irrelevant. I don't think their names are necessary; it is obviously important to note that people were killed, and their names could be used inline if some narrative of the events comes to be, but a list is just gratuitious. A list of names is entirely meaningless and unremarkable unless the names in that list are remarkable unto themselves, and in this event, it seems there were two people max who died who were important enough to merit articles. Titanium Dragon 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The importance of these people's names is not even really from their notability, but because the basic facts about them add pertinent information about a significant event. As is the case for the Columbine massacre & the victims of Charles Whitman the UTexas clocktower sniper, who the "delete 'em all" faction have also been trying to get rid of these last couple of days. --Yksin 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We've been trying to get rid of them because they aren't notable. These lists are nothing but effective memorials. Their names, their ages, their majors - none of this really matters at all. If you said X students and X faculty members were killed, it'd get across all the same information in far fewer lines. The rest is simply inconsequential, the same way we don't note minutate in every article. Its also very biased, as those who died in similar events don't have lists of victims for the sole and simple reason they weren't Americans. Obviously it isn't notable, as if it was notable, we'd have it for every such event; that it is only for Americans means it isn't notable, and is simply a way of eulogizing the dead. Titanium Dragon 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to make some kind of WP:POINT about coverage of mass killings that didn't occur in America. If you're unhappy that those articles (whichever they are) don't include lists of victims, {{sofixit}} rather than trying to make that point here. The names and basic details of the victims here are important factual information about the event; indeed, the fact that these people were killed is the only reason we have an article on the killings in the first place. To leave the information out would create unnecessary imprecision; if we have the ability to be precise rather than vague, why would we elect not to do so? The names of the victims aren't in and of themselves any more notable than the names of the buildings where the shootings occurred, or the names of the plays written by Cho, or the name of the student who shot the cell phone video, and yet all of these facts are small but vital supports of the body of the article, and without them it would collapse into a heap of "there was this guy and he shot some people, the end". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point about non-American mass killings; I'm trying to show that it isn't notable. I don't think victim lists SHOULD be on any of these things; they're meaningless. Their names mean nothing. It isn't about "leaving out their names"; names being mentioned inline is FINE. What I object to is articles like "lists of X killing" or the sections in these articles which consist of lists of names which mean absolutely nothing. I'm not trying to erase their names inline, but rather to get rid of the pointless list section which sits around in the middle of the article and accomplishes nothing at all useful.

Saying I'm trying to remove their names inline is WRONG. Read what this section is titled. The point was to get rid of the list, not to remove their names inline. Titanium Dragon 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that the names mean nothing. The name of a person who died serves to identify the person who died. Ergo, it has meaning. This seems like it should be obvious, and I don't understand why you're disputing it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was a vote, I would've voted remove section. It's too much. --Jambalaya 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Titanium Dragon. The names will mean nothing to the general public; basically, they take up space, but add no meaningul information. Are the names, ages and majors of the victims relevant to this article? In no substantial way, I'm certain. --Tail 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to get across. Thanks Tail, you said it very succiently. Titanium Dragon 05:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed because there is a separate article specifically for the list. The link to that article is all that is necessary. Rooot 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the content and moved the remaining section to the section "Attacks". --Abe Lincoln 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun control and international reaction straw poll

These sections are repeatedly being removed by a small number of users. Can we reach consensus on this issue first?

I say strong keep. Reason? Consider the article for 9/11 - more than half the article is about responses to it, because the way it effects society contributes to its importance and notability. The anti-gun debate here should be treated like the anti-terrorism debate there - as an integral part of the event. The importance of this event is because of how it effected us, and a large part of that effect is our response to the issue of violence in our society and gun control. There may be room to improve these sections, but that should not involve gutting out the majority of the information they contain. Sad mouse 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I also favour Keep. The media reaction is an important part of the debate. If it gets too big then a break out section is the way forward. TerriersFan 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - in its present form this section directly addresses the background and responses to this particular incident. It'll serve as a kook magnet, but that's hardly unique to this article. Rklawton 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't understand why some people try deleting it. --Pejman47 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep BUT reference:I support keeping it, but I might remove unsourceable statements.

Note - section deleted once again by IP 66 45 152 134 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.45.152.134 Section replaced until consensus is reached.

• Delete for the "International Media Response" subsection in the "Gun Control Debate" section only. While factual, I fail to see how media opinions outside the US decrying American gun laws are any more relevant to this article than it would be to have a similar section of US media responses decrying Australian gun control laws would be to the article on the Port Arthur massacre. Maybe it'd be relevant to a subsection of the gun politics article, but in this article, I'd say that, at most, this section should be just the opening line, plus references; the quotes are unnecessary and could be construed as POV. Rdfox 76 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly relevant to the article. Perhaps in the long-run it's worth moving to a different article, but it's certainly a notable aspect -Halo 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but radically shorten do we really need to quote 50 newspaper columnists all essentially saying the same thing? Kransky 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

10 references, from 10 different countries. Sad mouse 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but radically shorten This was a U.S. tragedy on the English Wikipedia and should be U.S. centric. Michael Moore hasn't done a documentary on this yet. --202.156.13.1 10:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It was one of those events that really did effect people outside the US, like 9/11, which has a large international response section.Sad mouse 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, you have no support for this assertion. Second, this was nothing like 9/11 as that was an attack launched by an international terrorist organization. This was an attack launched by a United States resident who had been living here for 15 years, had no proven contact with any international organizations, and attacked his own school. If anything this was a purely domestic event, and the international reaction should only be given cursory treatment. Rooot 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, there is considerable interest abroad. I know - I live "abroad". Interesting that even very conservative newspapers in England come down on the pro-gun control side re this event - thus pointing up that gun culture is an almost uniquely American phenomenon (even though other countries eg Switzerland have more guns per head). If it is true that the only way an American citizen can be safe in a public place is if he carries a loaded firearm - then what sort of comment is that on American society? (luckily I don't think it IS true despite what the pro-gun lobby thinks). On my next visit to the US, should I bring a gun with me? Exile 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The US is a safe country, and part of the reason may be that a certain unknown proportion of law abiding citizens can and do carry concealed firearms lawfully. As far as what sort of commentary that is on our society - to be honest, the vast majority of Americans don't really care what foreign newspapers think about our society. I suggest that you work on your society and we will work on ours. You are welcome to visit us and you will find that we are a safe country with decent and helpful people. If you want to bring a gun with you, you are welcome to do so - you will need to file a Form 6NIA import permit with the ATF. Kevinp2 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the talk pages (especially within a poll) aren't the place for debate on the merits of gun control or its effect (or lack thereof) on rates of murder or "gun crime". For the record, though, Exile is welcome to visit my home in the States with his gun, and I promise not to treat him like a criminal.  ;) 216.52.69.217 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect in saying this was a purely domestic event. Even barring how interconnected the world is now, and how much violent events can impact others around the world, of the 33 victims at least 11 were international citizens (some with US citizenship aswell). Sad mouse 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but Delete the "International Media Response" subsection. As others have pointed out, this is a US incident, by a US resident in a US college, implicating only the US Gun Control Debate. Grandstanding by the International Media, who have ZERO influence upon this debate, has no place in this article.Kevinp2 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At least eleven victims were international citizens - I count an Israeli, Canadian, two Indians, an Egyptian, two South Koreans, two Lebanese, one Puerto Rico and an Indonesian (some of which also held US citizenship).Sad mouse 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Someone please insert an image of the cover of The Economist, if it can be considered fair use. http://www.economist.com/printedition/ Gregohio 03:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I understand people who say that non-US papers shouldn't have their comments included because they dont affect gunlaws in the US -- but while we may avoid including repetitive statements ("the US has too many guns" etc) I think that international observers are capable of making certain observations by virtue of their detachment from American life, and therefore a certain survey of these comments is warranted. The criterion that commentators must have the "ability" to influence official Federal policy is false because all opinion can be compelling, no matter the source. Pablosecca 04:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While this might occasionally be true, in this particular case, detachment from American life has resulted in ignorance about it. I say this after reading through all of these International editorials, which consist of knee jerk regurgitations about the gun-crazy American society, unaccompanied by much fact or understanding about why so many Americans own guns and are concerned about their right to own them. Uninformed media reports also have to fall by the way side.Kevinp2 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of that, but I still think that the majority of the whole section belongs in either gun control or another article specifically about the gun control debate related to this event. Rooot 05:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[International Reaction on Gun Control] should go. Columbine doesn't have anything that I can see, nor does the Port Arthur massacre. An opportunity for anti-American flamebating. The Times and the Economist are fine newspapers but their opinions on this matter and on what should go in Wikipedia are irrelevant. --M a s 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (I moved this section up to the straw poll so the opinion of M a s would be included Sad mouse 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

• This has been discussed extensively above. Please look through the prior conversation on this matter above and in the archives. The majority of editors were in favour to keep the international reaction to this incident. A precedent for this is for example the article on 9-11. Themanwithoutapast 13:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There was certainly not a majority in favor of keeping this. Look in the archives yourself, Archive 11 to start with (there are several sections in this Archive), before making such wild claims. Rooot 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this debate and there has been no such majority to keep the International Reaction section. Most of the debate has been about the Gun Control section itself, not the International Reaction subsection. This section is useless to this article. The International Media is NOT well informed about the US gun control debate, its reaction is entirely skewed and one sided, and the US citizenry pays no attention whatsoever to what foreign newspaper editors think about this. The influence of the foreign media is ZERO, and is not notable at all. If we keep them in, we just humor their grandstanding. I again say that we should get rid of this. It makes as much sense as posting New York Times op-eds about the collapse of the Paris Airport Terminal building.Kevinp2 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not there was a majority is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. There has, however, been extensive discussion about this. Natalie 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people say that the VT Massacre was a "world event" and others say it was just a "USA event." International media may not know the USA gun control debate, but they do know the USA gun-death statistics, which are unique in the Western world. Nothing compares. It would seem then that learning about international reaction (and opinions and recommendations) could be quite informative.Que-Can 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun death statistics are part of the larger picture of homicide statistics (include non-gun killings) and violent crime statistics. The foreign media fixate on the gun death statistics, and ignore the others, even though those shows the US to be right in the middle of the Western world with respect to violent crime. Like I said, the foreign media are skewed hard to one side, and in any case, while you may wish that they might be informative, it doesn't change the fact that the US population DOESN'T CARE about their opinion. I am sorry to have to keep pointing this out. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't make their opinion automatically notable to an article.Kevinp2 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While it may be that the "US population doesn't care" about the international reaction to the VT Massacre, people in other countries are quite interested, since the American experience with guns and the gun culture is informative when creating and amending laws. This was expressed in the Australian Prime Minister's reaction (in the article). He was using the American example, e.g., the availability of guns, as one not to follow in Australia. Very often other countries study and follow progressive and positive American examples on social issues, etc., but American firearms' legislation is rarely copied outside of the USA. The way I see it, including "International Response" with the article broadens and informs the debate about the causes of these tragedies, and how shooting deaths like these can be prevented not only in the USA but also in other countries.Que-Can 06:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This might be true if the International media were actually informed about US gun issues. Reading through their editorials, the only thing that I am informed about is their ignorance of US gun issues. Perhaps that should be a separate article and their section could be moved there.Kevinp2 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review what Wikipedia is not. It's not an advocacy encyclopedia and is not a forum for debate. Regardless of how much or how little should stay or go this should not be a bookend to this tragedy. --M a s 10:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi M a s, your opinion has been noted. If it is okay, I am going to replace the international reaction section, not permanently, just until we reach a consensus. I agree with your point that many Americans may not really care about the international response to the shootings, however many non-Americans were affected by the shooting (both directly - a third of the victims held international citizenship, and indirectly) and many of the users of wikipedia are non-American and may be interested to read their response. Sad mouse 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Sad mouse is the final arbiter of all disputes concerning this section of the article. Rooot 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Summery of arguments The point of contention appears to be the international reaction section, with little argument to delete the other sections. I have tried to be neutral and summarise the arguments to keep or delete/reduce this section below. Sad mouse 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep

1. Response to shooting is a large part of the event and dictates notability, addresses background

2. Former featured article 9/11 has a large international reaction section

3. Roughly 1/3 of victims had international citizenship

4. Detachment of international media allows valuable opinion on US culture, broadens debate

5. Response in general is valuable and adds to the article (demonstrated by the domestic response which is a significant section of the article ~1/4)

Delete/Reduce

1. International response irrelevant to US event

2. Purely domestic event

3. International media have no influence over US gun policy

4. International media is ignorant about US gun laws

5. Columbine (featured article) and Port Arthur (start class) shootings do not have similar section

Analysis Keep point 2 and delete point 5 cancel each other out – both strategies have been used in featured class articles. Keep point 3 negates delete point 2 since it shows the event was not purely domestic. Delete point 4 seems to be an opinion, unless there is specific evidence that the international response section contains reasoning that is verifiably incorrect (which seems unlikely considering several domestic news sources reach the same conclusions). The broad keep argument is therefore – 1) the event was an international event, and 2) response to the event is considered valuable and the international reaction broadens the spectrum of response given. The delete/reduce argument is therefore 1) domestic response if valuable but the international response is irrelevant to Americans and has no influence in America.

Is this a joke? Your wording is so obviously biased that no person unfamiliar with this topic could possibly understand the opposition to your point with this list. You use terms like "ignorant," "irrelevant," and "purely." to describe the opposing point of view. You are casting that point in absolute terms. On top of that, point 1 of the "Delete/Reduce" section is a conclusion for the rest. I am going to lay out what my personal arguments are for this, but I am not so pompous as to believe that I can honestly reduce everyone else's arguments into a convenient list while retaining their intended message.

COUNT I

THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE BELONGS ON A DIFFERENT PAGE

A. Whether different gun laws would have affected this event is pure speculation. There is no way to possibly know this for sure. That includes either Cho's purchasing of the weapons or anyone else's ability to carry weapons. Either way, there is no way to know. Therefore this is all worthless palaver.

B. The purpose of this article should be to provide factual details relating to the event. Any analysis of gun control is exactly that, analysis. This type of information does not deserve substantial treatment here.

1. Policy issues belong on pages devoted to the policy in question.

2. There is already a page devoted to this debate: gun control. If that page is already too crowded with material, then two feasible options exist besides keeping it in this article. First, a new, separate page could be created devoted specifically to the gun control issue and the Virginia Tech Massacre. This would be much like the list of victims page. Or, perhaps the information is not that important anyway. If it is not important enough regarding the gun control debate at large, thus not warranting its inclusion on the gun control page, then why should it be given special treatment here?

COUNT II

THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE SECTION TO THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE IS OVERKILL

A. Every single sentence in the section is pro-gun control. By itself, this might not actually be a problem, if it is true that every single country in the world agrees that the lack of gun control was the problem here. Besides the obvious problems with verifying this, this point may not actually matter for my argument.

B. Postulating that every single country in the world agrees on this, why does it deserve such a large section? Every quotation says essentially the same thing. It is redundant to keep each of these entries in their current state.

C. The international responses may or may not influence the United States' policy on guns. However, besides the fact that there were a few international students killed in this event, there was nothing else "international" about it. It was a US Resident, at a US College, without any international influence. If this does cause international debate on gun control, that will also be a separate event. Much like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand may have been a cause of World War I, but they are given separate pages. The aftermath events were their own thing. It would be inappropriate to include substantial treatment of World War I on Archduke Franz Ferdinand's page, just as it would be inappropriate to include substantial treatment of gun control and the international reactions to it on the Virginia Tech Massacre page.

COUNT III

GIVING THE GUN CONTROL SECTION SUBSTANTIAL SPACE AMOUNTS TO FLAME-BAITING

A. The Virginia Tech event has brought significant emotional reactions out of people. Adding gun control to this is fuel to the fire.

B. Not everyone who comes to view the page cares about the gun control debate. If it were on a separate page, they would not have to see it if they did not want to see it.

COUNT IV

GUN CONTROL AND THE VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE ARE INDEPENDENT

A. The gun control debate has been going on for a long time before this event, and it will go on for a long time after.

B. As mentioned above, whether this event would have taken place but for different gun control laws is pure speculation.

COUNT V

OTHER CAUSES FOR THE VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE DO NOT RECEIVE SIMILAR TREATMENT

A. Bullying

B. Child abuse

C. Mental health

D. Racism

E. Culture of materialism

F. Socio-economic pressures

G. ETC.

H. Singling this single potential cause out for special treatment is nothing less than endorsement of that cause by our editors.

These are my personal views, and do not reflect what I think anyone else believes. I encourage everyone to share their thoughts on this matter as well. Just don't let anyone else speak for you. Rooot 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why you are so angry, considering you did not list these points in the straw poll, so how was I meant to summarise them? My opinion on this subject is clear, but I tried to be neutral in summarising the different arguments, I don't see any obvious error, I acknowledged that some of delete points countered the keep points, and I refrained from making a conclusion. Despite the obvious emotion, your list doesn't really add much - Count I is that the entire section should be removed, you are the only one to have put forward that opinion in the straw poll. Count II was already stated above by others and I included it in my summary, you will note that Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand actually includes a substantial section called "consequences", so I am unsure why you used that example. Count III makes little sense, why should the test be "every single person who visits the page must be interested"? Count IV is true, the gun debate will continue regardless and we don't know the effect different gun laws would have, however I am uncertain how that modifies why international opinions should be removed? Perhaps you could elaborate? Count V is true, other factors did not receive similar treatment in the article, and this is because they did not receive similar treatment in the media. Google news search for "bullying" and "Virgina Tech" (1247 articles), "racism" and "Virginia Tech" (187 articles) or "child abuse" and "Virginia Tech" (103 articles) compared to "gun control" and "Virgina Tech" (4399 news articles and understated due to clustering). You may personally disagree with it, but gun control was the most associated factor in the media with the Virginia Tech shootings. If you feel like researching racism, etc and adding them, that seems worthwhile. Sad mouse 05:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Because these have been listed over and over throughout the discussion on this topic. You chose to create yet another arbitrary break in the discussion with your "straw poll." The comments in this poll do not take in to consideration a large chunk of the discussion that has already taken place on this topic. See Archive 11. Rooot 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rooot, I will share my thoughts, and trust I will not be censored...

Many other articles include international reactions. Search for "international reactions". The argument may be one-sided - but you are welcome to include any international reactions praising the gun culture of the US if you can find any. There may not be a similar section for Columbine - but that could be because this is a case of 'once bitten, twice bitten'. The international community is expressing concern that lessons weren't learnt after Columbine. It is highly relevant to this article as it has sparked a lot of interest. Just because 'some' people want to ignore the international reaction is no reason to leave it out. And Americans wanting other countries to butt out of their affairs? Don't make me laugh. 203.97.51.149 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Americans wanting other countries to butt out of their affairs" - actually it is simpler than that - like many countries, we simply don't pay any attention to outsiders and their newspapers commenting on our domestic matters. You may desire that we pay attention, but we don't.Kevinp2 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably those Americans that think like you will just skip the section, while those Americans who do pay attention to the international community (and those from outside America) will read it, so what is the harm in including it? Also, I believe you do a disservice in thinking that most Americans have a similar outlook to you, as someone who lives in America there are many Americans who do actually consider international opinion. Sad mouse 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, there are many Americans who do pay attention to international opinion. Additionally, regardless of how many Americans choose to ignore international opinions, a huge number of people in the world pay attention to, and do care, about what America does. American events have impacts on people outside of America. Wikipedia is not just for Americans. A number of international students died in this attack, plus multiple professors/teachers and a grad student, but even if it had been only U.S. citizens it would still be something people in other countries paid attention to. Like it or not, an event like this is of international interest and does have some part in shaping the way the world sees us.

Kevinp2 wrote: "we simply don't pay any attention to outsiders and their newspapers commenting on our domestic matters. You may desire that we pay attention, but we don't."

Fine, feel free to skip over the section if you don't care about it, but please let it be there for those who do. You might even consider that IF international opinions were more accessible in our domestic daily media that some portion of the population might like to pay more attention than they currently do. Pladuk 18:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'Massacre'

'Massacre' is too one-sided a term for what took place. A more neutral term like 'killings' or 'shootings' is more appropriate, if indeed the NPOV policy is to be upheld. If you wish to pander to the emotional masses, you would do well to keep it as massacre. Vranak

But your opposition to this term is not backed by anything so...--Svetovid 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your support of massacre is not backed up by anything so... Vranak

The key with "massacre" is that its definition specifies the killing is indiscriminate, whereas your other suggested words do not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spencewah (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The location of the killings shows discrimination. Why not a parking lot, a shopping mall, a movie theatre? Vranak

Besides Spencewah's point, it was initially decided to not pre-empt the media and give the article whatever name the incident would come to have. 'Massacre' won out over 'shooting' after it turned out that the former had been adopted into wide use. --Kizor 05:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So consensus gentium is a good reason for doing things now? Ah, let's see if American Idol is on... Vranak

I guess I still don't see your evidence for massacre as an emotionally charged term. Spencewah 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough: but are you sure you mean 'evidence'? I think you mean, a compelling explanation or rationale, yes? Or would you like court-signed papers from expert witnesses stating that 'massacre' is not an appropriate term? Vranak

You know what I mean, don't get snarky =) Spencewah 05:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I have a bad habit of taking words at face value.

First off, and I said this earlier, a massacre really means a rout on a battlefield. The students who were killed were not expecting battle that day.

Second, I find massacre to be pejorative: it has connotations of badness, evilness.

Third, it's a poor descriptor: shootings gives more information: a gun was used.

Fourth: it just doesn't feel right. For some reason massacres and guns don't go together. Massacres and chainsaws, massacres and meat cleavers, massacres and katanas, sure. Vranak

To be honest, I'd be fine with "shooting". And by Kizor's consensus argument above, shooting beats out massacre in the Google news search. Put it up for a vote? Spencewah 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Virginia Tech massacre" actually beats "Virginia Tech shooting": 5,609 to 3,718. "Massacre" is in prevalent use in CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc. --Kizor 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, massacre sounds to emotional. It'd go with shooting. Soldiers massacre when they commit genocide, people shoot. perfectblue 10:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you would also need to change "Columbine massacre" to "Columbine shootings" and Boston Massacre to "Boston shootings". A compromise would be to have such articles rendered as "such-and-such shootings", and with "such-and-such massacre" redirected to "shootings". Another example of a "massacre" was handled this way: "The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre..." Wahkeenah 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A massacre need not be on a battlefield. Unless you consider the site of the Bostom Massacre to be a battlefield instead of a town square. And the Redcoats used guns, not chainsaws. Wahkeenah 11:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll revise that: a massacre occurs between two sides that expect a fight. Vranak

Expecting or not expecting a fight does not enter into it. Wahkeenah 03:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does. Vranak

Your definition of "massacre" does not agree with the definitions of neither dictionaries, the press, or other Wikipedians. Massacre has nothing to do with a battle. Consensus on this talk page has chosen to go with the media's term for the time being, which is currently massacre. (It would help if you looked in the archives before bringing this up again.) Phony Saint 04:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you can quote dictionaries all you want, but the term is still lurid and sensationalist, appealing to the overwrought emotions of the 'shocked and appalled' masses. If you took NPOV policy seriously this would have remained at 'shootings'. Vranak

According to WP policy, we must use the consensus term that has developed in the media. It's not our place to judge whether it is emotional or not. I think there's strong evidence cited above that the media is settling on Virginia Tech massacre, if it hasn't already. Ronnotel 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then that policy is deeply flawed! You think that Wikipedia should follow the lead of such stellar news organizations as ABC, CBS, and Fox News? Vranak

I'm of the opinion that "massacre" is overly lurid and sensationalist, and I wish I could say that English-language media and I saw eye-to-eye, but it's definitely more complex than. Let me pull some evidence together.

• Google search for "virginia tech" shootings yields 14,900,000 hits.
• Google search for "virginia tech" massacre yields 6,710,000 hits.

But: the New York Times has lumped their coverage under the heading, "Massacre in Virginia", as have the LA Times, CNN, and even the Beeb. The usually stolid Financial Times does not use the word prominently, but it does appear in their coverage. I it all rather tasteless, and I am frankly surprised by it, but consensus does seem to be forming behind "massacre". Pity, but the article should stay at this title unless that changes. A Train^talk 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

‘Virginia Tech shootings” 1,900,000 is a bit different from “Virginia Tech massacre” 2,500,000, but also worth noting is the converse: “Shootings at Virginia Tech” (906,000) vs “Massacre at Virginia Tech” (877,000). Not to mention “Virginia Tech” shootings (16,900,000) vs “Virginia Tech” massacre (12,300,000). Also, even more interesting, “Virginia Tech shooting” gets a whopping 3,900,000 – that’s about 150% of massacre. That seems to be the most common term. Titanium Dragon 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary defines "massacre" as deriving from Old French for "slaughter" and meaning "The killing of a number of human beings under circumstances of atrosity or cruelty." The definition fits this event just fine. Wahkeenah 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of dictionaries out there and just because yours says one thing that doesn't make it objective fact. Dictionaries are written by falliable people, just like us, so let's skip the middle man and just discuss the word in terms of what it means to us. Vranak

We are not here to be lexicographers. Rooot 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Vranak

Says WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rooot (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

For example, the My Lai Massacre involved lining people up and shooting them. This distinguishes the term "massacre" from "normal" battlefield activity, in which presumably both sides are armed and are conducting "normal" warfare. Wahkeenah 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Compare with Battle of the Little Bighorn and Battle of the Alamo. Although in both cases the defenders were killed to the last man, and thus the term "massacre" is sometimes used (especially with Little Bighorn, as "massacre" was a term often used in connection with the Indian Wars), these were both military engagements, not the slaughter of unarmed civilians. Wahkeenah 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

the article was originally the 'Virginia Tech Shooting', but near the begining it was moved here. I forget what the reasoning was but it was good enough for it to be moved here, go look at the first couple archives and see if that convinces you-Threewaysround 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• A train, your searches are false. The complete phrases have to be searched as: "Virginia Tech shootings" vs. "Virginia Tech massacre". Here's what we get:

• "Viriginia Tech massacre" 5,930,000 Ghits
• "Virginia Tech shootings" 1,960,000 Ghits.

It is rather obvious what these events are known as. (→Netscott) 00:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read my whole post, then you saw that I was doing my best to be open-minded despite my POV, and ultimately came to the same conclusion that you did, just using different searches. A Train^talk 06:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Its actually far more interesting that Google is actually giving MORE results when you -wikipedia; when you don't -wikipedia both get fewer than half as many hits. Also, you didn't run the best one of all: If you try and run "virginia tech shooting" -wikipedia, it gets over 9,000,000 hits - even more than "virginia tech massacre" -wikipedia. So by your logic, the page should be called "Virginia Tech shooting". 06:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A mass-killing is actually more likely to be a 'massacre' if it takes place off of a battlefield. A key component of a massacre is that one side is unable to defend itself. Rooot 05:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My paper said: mass shooting rampage.... idk... its a tough time to argue this. Let's give it a rest please. --wpktsfs 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah let's just give all of Wikipedia a rest... it's good enough right? Vranak

That's not helpful. A Train^talk 15:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychotic illness

I take Psychology course in high school we are on the chapter of psychotic illness so after this occured my teacher asked us to figure out what kind was the killer suffering from. i have reached the conclusion of Paranoid Scrizophrenia. But i am still surprised because what would aggrivate him so much that he would do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missionimpossible (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Look up ASPD Spencewah 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but warning signs don't mix beacuse i heard somewhere he gave warning signs and i am pretty sure after looking up in cnn i didn't find that he was a pyro a warning sign of ASPD thank you though for your help--Missionimpossible 03:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope your teacher has taught you that it's impossible for even a trained expert to come to a conclusion at this point about what mental illness this individual might have been suffering from based only on news reports we now have. --Crunch 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it's impossible but we were just guessing --Missionimpossible 06:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. Anchoress 22:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen I am sorry if i offended you in any way but i don't think i deserve that kind of language.--Missionimpossible 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon has been warned.--Dynaflow 22:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he was on a SSRI antidepressant. http://nomorefakenews.com/index.php http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/04/19/the_virginia_tech_shootings_a_psychiatric_drug_connection.htm 201.19.199.254 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He could be but i heard he gave warning signs in his english class his teacher went and complained to the university officials also he wrote some sort of a Manifesto and during his interview was heard saying "You made me do this" anti deprresants don't make you delusional, or give warning signs they might make you homicidal or sucidial though.--Missionimpossible 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How about finding a more reliable source than a person who writes about past lives and mind control? Phony Saint 19:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/19/194210.shtml?s=lh

or that: http://www.healyprozac.com/ 201.19.199.254 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. The first barely mentions Cho, let alone it speculates based on media reports; the second doesn't talk about Cho at all. Until a reliable news source writes specifically about Cho confirmed to be on a specific type of drug, we shouldn't mention it. This isn't the place to speculate. Phony Saint 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article. If you'd like to speculate about Cho, that's fine, but this is the wrong place for it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Then could you tell me the right page where to go and speculate about him. thank you --Missionimpossible 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed a sentence saying that it is a taboo in South Korea to discuss mental illness. South Koreans might hesitate to get treatment for mental illness, but it is not a taboo at all to discuss mental illness generally, or anyone's mental problem or illness. --chunwook 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Go back to China"

In the portion of the article mentioning that Cho was bullied in high school, I think it might be relevant to note that his classmates said "Go back to China." The reference about the high school bulling does mention it. Why is this relevant? It just shows that certain segments of the population cannot tell the difference between a Chinese, Japanese, or a Korean. Recall for instance, that several news coporations at first claimed that the perpetuator is a Chinese national. I also remeber WWII posters produced by the US government that tried to let Americans to determine the difference between a Japanese and a Chinese. The main point is that there are racial stereotypes involved, but we don't need to promote this POV except to say that Cho's classmates told him "Go back to China" even though he was for all practical purposes a Korean-American. 61.229.182.23 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with what you're saying is that this is not an article about racial prejudice in the United States, it's an article about a shooting that occurred at Virginia Tech. I'm not disagreeing with the point you're trying to make, but the fact of the matter is that it is entirely irrelevant to the article, as it is not directly related to the article itself. Unless it's shown that the shooter acted specifically because people mistook him for being Chinese (which I sincerely doubt), the material is irrelevant. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 96.224.58.54 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...you would think if racism was an issue Cho would have volunteered that information in his 1,800 word rant. Kransky 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this might be irrelevant, but somehow bias might have contributed to Cho's anger, so please describe this possibility. 24.131.202.186 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one feel that it is a very, very big part of Cho's history, and should be included in Cho's article, not in the VTM article. It is relevant to the shooting though. --wpktsfs 06:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this By The Way request: About that "Son of a ..." comment of Cho's elderly relatives, is the Mirror.co.uk new source reliable or is it made up by the media? I would be concerned if it is not from the elderly person as that indicates yet another stereotyping attempt by that media: putting words into someone's mouth as if they claimed doing it! To maintain neutrality of this article please explicitly cite that new source next to that statement rather than at showing the source at the footer. 24.131.202.186 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Shooter's nation of birth in lead?

Why is it necessary to mention the shooter's nation of birth in the lead of this article? It doesn't seem to be important enough for this article. --ElKevbo 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. His nationality (not birth) is important for two reasons. He is not an American citizen, but the shooting is characterized as an American shooting. Secondly, there were false media reports that the gunman was a Chinese national (as detailed later in the article). Cho was also teased to "Go back to China" as a high schooler. Thus the confusion over his nationality is very real and should be clarified at the first mention of his name. The fact that he is a permanent resident of the US means very little, Seung-Hui Cho has no voting rights in the US and could have faced deportation to South Korea had he committed a less atrocious felony and not killed himself. --Naus 19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, until very recently, all school shootings in the US had been perpetrated by middle class white students, and the media regarded it as a suburban phenomenon. The Red Lake High School massacre was the first US school shooting where the gunman was white and poor. Granted, we can't point all of this out in the article, as it's original synthesis, but we can point out that the gunman was a South Korean national. Natalie 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? We can't state something but we can insinuate it? --ElKevbo 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What insinuation? That this massacre was not committed by a middle class white American? It wasn't. --Naus 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Placing one solitary fact in the lead of this article to attempt to provide our own "balance" and "prove the media's theories wrong" is not what we do here. We don't engage in original research or opinion-making directly or subtly. --ElKevbo 20:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we say, "The Columbine massacre was committed by natural-born American citizens Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?" szyslak (t, c) 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

the lead is supposed to breifly summerise the entire article/event. it's made to basically answer all the basic questions, and give someone the just of what happened. i think that right now it's doing that. i think we hsould just leave it alone-Threewaysround 20:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

i tend to agree with Three Ways. tomasz. 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How much does a person remember up to age 8? (I personally don't remember much). By indicating this killer is a Korean immigrant without specifying "Up to age 8" or "immigrated to USA at age 8" is not alright. By not clarifying only 2 out of 17 of his schooling years occurred in Korea, a blank statement on his nationality mislead some into anti-immigrantation sentiment. --HtcWiki 20:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HtcWiki; by expounding upon the fact that the shooter is a Korean National, it seems that there might be a push to shift the blame away from America. However a person living in a country for 8 years, then living the next 15 years in America, it seems that the shooter was raised and heavily influenced in an American environment. I am not saying that this article should exclude the nationality identification of the shooter, but to not make a big deal such as constantly tagging "Korean National" after the word shooter. This tagging has been done in news to create more shock and awe appeal, for ratings, but let's keep wikipedia more about the information, and less about entertainment. Pgaru 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all about "remembering up to age 8," it's about fitting in as a young immigrant and being teased as a result of this ("Go back to China"). Seung-Hui Cho did not magically know how to speak English once he arrived in the US at age 8. That Seung-Hui Cho is a South Korean national is an important encyclopedic fact as discussed above. --Naus 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That all seems like speculation verging on OR. --ElKevbo 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you should tell HtcWiki that as I was addressing his speculation. My position is what I wrote in my first response to you above. You want to tell me what is OR about that? --Naus 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of the statements, yours and HtcWiki's, appear to be OR to me. One or both could be true as I haven't closely followed the media reports about the shooter in the past few days; apologies if my knowledge is out of date. --ElKevbo 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep if for no other reason than the Korean government and public made it an issue. The President issued an apology - even if it was not necessary the Korean public he appeared genuinely ashamed of the event. Kransky 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a sufficient argument to keep it. It was reported in our media to the Korean government, not generated from -- this story has already been construed as some kind of a international situation when it is purely domestic. Seung-Hui Cho developed his mental issues and inabilities here in the United States and under the influence of American culture and the English language. Regardless of "early warning signs" or supposed autism, the true manifestation of his psychology happened on U.S. soil and society. This is all very clear and clearly now, the news has decided to stop talking about him as a South Korean national. Also we know he grew up middle-class and particularly in a wealthy area, he is not merely a young immigrant and we have no right to judge the situation or place it in a perspective that is not the facts themselves: middle-class family who happened to be Asian. Ie Harris isn't a British American and McVeigh isn't a Scottish American. Wikipedia is an international product, right now we are white-ing it out by inducing the topic of race and nationality when NO connection has been established yet. Davumaya 01:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In response I refer you back to what I originally said: Keep if for no other reason than the Korean government and public made it an issue. Your comments about Seung-Hui Cho developing a mental illness due to the influence of American culture sound a bit loopy (if not insulting). Why not say his Korean background made it unbearable for him to be in the shadow of his Princeton graduate sister? Kransky 13:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Korean background?" Please save me the disgust of having to call you out as a racist. If it's the judgement of the Wikipedia community to white-out this incident as a case of "that poor immigrant" then I guess I can't stop racism in its tracks. No one speaks about Dylan Klebold's Jewish ancestry being a laughable irony with his Nazism. The Asian American Journalists Association did issue a press release urging the media covering the tragedy to “avoid using racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason.” I suggest someone place that in a useful spot to soften the slander we're commiting. Davumaya 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow...talk about somebody with issues (and you stalking around my User:Kransky page was a bit creepy). My original point was complementary of the Korean government and people for going any responsibility they needed to take for Cho. Then you said that Cho's actions were due to American culture; I was just raising the stakes in this pretty tawdy argument. It is you who is making Wikipedia a soapbox. Kransky 10:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unhappy about how Korea's action was portrayed as "shock and sense of public shame". The shock is reasonable but stating that the nation of Korea has public shame does not seem right. Many other individuals commit crimes, yet there is no national shame for that matter. Therefore by saying Korea has national shame for this one person who lived most of his life in America, the statement is implying that Korea is trying to appease the world and almost saying that it is Korea's fault. I do not think public shame should be added, unless the nation of Korea was to blame. Pgaru 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going on media reports from international and Korean sources (BBC, Korea Times). I also don't think the Korean people needed to feel ashamed for the actions of one person, but that is the way many felt.Kransky 10:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

John Howard

Just wanted to congratulate editors who worked on the international reactions section. The John Howard part in particular is IMHO a lot better. As I've mentioned before, the CNN characterisation of it as an attack on (decrying) the negative gun culture of the US was clearly inaccurate as if you see what he said (and consider the upcoming election), it's quite obvious what he's trying to say. Nil Einne 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you give your reasoning for why the international reactions section should remain in the article or be removed, in the straw poll above? It has been proposed for deletion. Sad mouse 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Victim Status

Should we list the statuses of the victims? I know 27 were injured. Just by looking at the list you don't know if they are the ones that were killed , injured, or if the list is a combination of both.ShadowWriter 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the injured people's names have been released, so all of those people on the list are people who died. I can make sure it's clear who the list refers to. Natalie 17:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the names have been released, but a partial list deleted from the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre page a while back. I'm unsure whether to put them back. -Halo 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Redlinked dates in references

Does anyone know why so many of the dates are redlinked in the ISO format (for me, anyway)? I assume this has to do with the changes recently made (and undone) to the cite web template but I don't know what this would be happening given my (very limited) knowledge of that template. Anyone know what's going on? It looks quite ugly and seems indicative of a larger problem (but perhaps one limited just to me). --ElKevbo 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's linking the whole date, including year - the difference between 23 April 2007 and 23 April 2007. That's the only thing I can think of that would do that. Natalie 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

i fixed a few of these yesterday. looks to me like someone's replaced the hyphens in dates (e.g. [[2007-20-04]]) with – ndashes. tomasz. 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deadliest shooting

I object to the following claim in the initial summary paragraph:

"... making it the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history."

This claim is fraught with inaccuracy, inconsistency, and mere opinion. Moreover, ranking the Virginia Tech massacre by body count in the summary does a grave injustice to the seriousness of the event. The Historical context section is accurate, appropriate, and comprehensive in discussing how the event measures up to prior, related events. I advise this claim be removed from only the initial summary of the article.

I know this subject has been discussed "many times" and I understand there was a so-called "consensus"; however:

"Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." (Wikipedia:Consensus)

Adraeus 03:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So, could you elaborate on why "deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" is inaccurate, inconsistent, and OR, and why what you say would change previous consensus? Have you reviewed the previous consensuses to see why they chose what they did? Phony Saint 04:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Ambiguous — The phrase "modern U.S. history" is ambiguous. Modern Times identifies "modern history" as referring to events that occurred within the period of 1701 to 2007. Some individuals believe that "modern" means "present-day", or in this case, "21st century." Vernacular use of a word in a formal context is often ambiguous and can be false when interpreted as formal use. Other definitions of "modern" include "relating to a recently developed fashion or style", "characteristic of present-day art and music and literature and architecture", and "ahead of the times".[1] None of these definitions apply to the word "modern" as used in the current context.
2. Inaccurate — Per definition, all killing sprees that primarily involved firearms that occurred between 1701 and 2007 must be considered to establish the legitimacy of the claim of "deadliest [shooting] in modern U.S. history".
3. Inconsistent — The Historical context section explicitly identifies Mountain Meadows massacre, Wounded Knee massacre, and Fort Pillow massacre as deadlier shootings in U.S. history. The phrase "modern U.S. history" given the definition of Modern Times encompasses, and does not exclude, these events. The Historical context section, at least, recognizes that there have been deadlier shootings in modern U.S. history despite the initial contradicting claim.
4. Original research — Claiming that Virginia Tech massacre is "the deadliest [shooting] in modern U.S. history" despite evidence to the contrary is opinion, even when cited. The mainstream press often uses such phrases as talking points without regard for factual accuracy. A proper citation would explicitly attribute the claim to the author. For example, "According to Christine Hauser at New York Times, the Virginia Tech massacre is the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history." At that point, this statement would be best left to the inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre article.

Adraeus 09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adraeus - First, thanks for adding your input here. I apologize for rv'ing you earlier - my intent was to preserve the status-quo while we discussed your concerns here first. There has been considerable interest expressed that some sense of the historical context of this attack be included in the lead paragraph. While trying not to be morbid, it's extraordinary, indeed, historic, that a single gunman was able to kill so many armed only with two sidearms. Many have felt that this element needs to be captured up front in some way, especially in light of so many media sources using this element in their own ledes. Given this, many different phrases have been attempted to characterize it - 'single-perpetrator', 'peace-time', 'civilian', etc. All have been rejected as wordy, in appropriate, or WP:OR. The only phrase that has persevered has been deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, which, btw, is highly atrributable to MSM reports. I think the only real contention you have is whether the term modern accurately qualifies the attack in line with the historical record. While I see your point, I believe the majority of editors will accept the term modern as an adequate balance between the need for compactness and the desire for accuracy. I disagree with your use of Modern Times as a starting point. Modern in the context of US history is very different than modern world history - for instance, see this syllabus - where modern US history begins in the latter stages of industrialization, mid-1890s. For the casual reader, the term does not unnecessarily break up the flow of the paragraph, while the more astute reader will take it as a cue to investigate further and be drawn to the Historcial Context section for further discussion. Please accept that this phrase was not taken lightly and considerable thought and discussion has gone into developing it. Ronnotel 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the use of the phrase "deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" as ambiguous, inaccurate, inconsistent, and original research. If "mass" is included in that phrase, I also dispute the use as redundant. I do not accept the vernacular use of the word "modern" in a formal, historical context. Therefore, prior consensus is no longer valid. The editors of this article are thus presented with three options of which I am aware. Casual disregard of my position is not an option.

• Preserve the status quo while reverting my edits in bad faith, contradicting Wikipedia:Consensus and meriting Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
• Accept the placement of the {{disputed}} tag on the face of the article.
• Collaborate, in good faith, to either ensure the statement's specificity and accuracy or remove the statement altogether. This option might involve completely rewriting the statement to maintain consistency with the Historical context section, or properly attributing the statement to an appropriate source.

Adraeus 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adraeus, I think you'll find it easier to reach compromise when you avoid the thread of dispute resolution should you not get your way. Nevertheless, I for one am all ears. Here are some basic requirements I think we should be able to agree to on how to phrase this:

1. context - multiple MSM ledes cite the historic nature of the attack - our lede should do so as well.
2. readability - must keep it brief and not interrupt the flow of the paragraph
3. attribution - as per WP:ATT, we must be able to attribute whatever we use or it will get tossed as WP:OR
4. accuracy - the statement should reflect our best understanding of history and be consistent with the Historic context section.

I'm open to any phrasing that meets these four guidelines. Ronnotel 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Modern US history" is more specific than 1701-2007. That time frame by itself is greater than "US History" as the United States was founded in 1776. So, "modern" should be a subset of "us history." I don't know what would qualify, but my guess would be somewhere since the Industrial Revolution would be termed "modern." 129.237.2.66 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate media reports article

I don't think that it is necessary to shorten this article at all, but that being said, I see too many people stripping valuable information from the massare article because they want to tell others where it belongs. I removed the excess on the masacre to nothing but a link to the inaccurate media reports article because while I'm against it, I am even more against the idea of having only a few posted here. We should post something about all or none of the contentions in inaccurate media reports on this page. Please respond and discuss here before changing it again.Youngidealist 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as the summary paragraph is there due to WP:SS. I don't think the solution to missing information is to delete the incomplete info. (Perhaps you could elaborate on what should be added?) Phony Saint 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Forking:

See also Wikipedia:Content forking In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split which results in the original article and/or the spin-off violating NPOV), and/or a difference in approach between the summary and the spin-off, etc. See: Wikipedia:Content forking, Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles.

Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.

It seems to me that you are blocking the POV of other innacurate media reports being mentioned. Either a list of all of them should go up in this article, or none should. Putting only some here distracts people from actually cleaning up the inaccurate media reports article. I am going to leave this for you to comment on or change before I change it myself, as I had expected you to do before. Besides, it's not just important that it is allowed by the rules, you should be trying to show unbiasedness and fairness on wikipedia.Youngidealist 04:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just incase this is where we are getting hung up, look at the main "inaccurate media reports on the virginia tech massacre" page. I think your point is already there. If it's not then i apollogize for not having moved it there when I deleted itYoungidealist 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the summary is missing something, you can rewrite it rather than deleting it outright. The style guideline states that there should be a summary paragraph; what you changed it to doesn't follow that guideline. Phony Saint 05:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I went and tried to review the main inaccurate media page to tidy it up a bit and it seems that there are only two major points on it, so I made their categories and I'll now go and add the one that is missing. Also, if someone else comes by and deletes either point in summary to "shorten the article" please be supportive in making sure that the removal is reverted. I origionally took out everything because I didn't want to have to keep fighting people who cut out the points completely for this reason.Youngidealist 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes in formatting for victim list in the "List of victims" article

I changed the formatting for the list of victims so that victims are organized by classroom. WhisperToMe 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

NYT article on this page

The New York Times has done an article on this page. Good work everyone, all 2,074 of us! -Ravedave 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We have been mentioned a few times in coverage of the role of new media, but an article dedicated to this page is another thing entirely. Good work, folks. I'd be obliged if someone with a paper copy could scan this and link to it here - it'd go a long way towards explaining what I've been doing to my course instructor. --Kizor 14:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice quote Miikka. I really like it. --155.52.25.46 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:) --Kizor 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I think it would be nice if Noam Cohen, the author of the NY Times article, would indicate whether he has been an editor of this article. Not that I think anything sinister is going on - but I, for one, would like to know whether any of my fellow editors are about to write an article like this. I also wonder how many professional MSMers might be contributing to these pages in their spare time. Anyone else feel the same? Ronnotel 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The account used to contact me made its first and only edit in doing so, though it was registered in January. No reason to think that he did, especially not when the point of his article is trying to make sense of Wikipedia's process from an outsider's perspective. --Kizor 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see that, thanks. Ronnotel 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you not have email set up, Kizor? I got an email from him instead of on-wiki contact. Natalie 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do. I got both, the contact slightly before the e-mail. This might be because I'm special. Incidentally, excellent work there. --Kizor 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, specialness. I have to remember to pick some of that up next time I'm at Target. :) Natalie 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho was enrolled in a VA Class on Horror Films and Serial Killers

Arguably one of the most mitigating factors along with his mental illness. Why does the article make no mention of this? DutchSeduction 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How is being enrolled in a class a "mitigating factor"? What about everyone else who was enrolled in that class? Wahkeenah 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All of Cho's school records could lead to mitigating factors. If there is a valid source for this information then I think that it is a reasonable point to make, that at least Cho might have learned the first names of the Columbine shooters and felt that he understood them as well as the unibomber by being influenced in this class. It would make a great argument to not allow students who show a history of violent or threatening actions to be a part of abnormal psychology courses. I think the fact is a good one to point out if only for that potential speculation. Youngidealist 09:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not speculate. Wikipedia records fact, nothing more. At least, that's the idea. Some articles speculate, but that does not mean they are correct in doing so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.64.3.68 (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Online video response

It seems inappropriate to have a sub-topic like this, I've removed it. It was only one sentence which couldn't really be expanded on and was purely related to gun control which appears later on, at length, in the same article. There was also no need to have a large video thumbnail for such a tiny subtopic, and the link seemed to lead to various videos that had nothing to do with gun control (perhaps spam?). If anyone disagrees with this removal, feel free to reverse, but please reply with a reason :-) Mentality 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Smells spammy to me. I concur with its excision. --Dynaflow 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree, i almost removed it myself, at the least extremly POV in relation this article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The American public's stance

An Opinion Dynamics poll recently found that 76 percent of Americans believe stricter gun laws would not help to prevent shootings like this in the future. Since this constitutes a very strong majority, in light of the gun control debate presented in this article it might be worthy to mention this somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.15.226.72 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think it merits inclusion. This just tells us what one set of Americans had to say in a particular poll on a particular day. But whether or not Americans believe stricter laws would prevent such shootings has no bearing on whether laws would actually have an impact on shooting sprees. It's just an opinion, taken from what may be a very fickle group. Including such a factoid without an attempt at synthesis wouldn't help the article, and would constitute the inclusion of "indiscriminate information," but any attempt at synthesis, or to interpret such a poll, without a verifiable and reliable source for such synthesis, would constitute Original Research. It's better left out entirely. zadignose 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to mark reservations about the source - Opinion Dynamics have been known to report statistics that seem to be biased towards the right in my experience. -Halo 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is relevant and warrants inclusion along with the rest of the info in that section. We are already quoting papers that have a definite editorial bias, so even if this source tends to lean a certain direction that should not preclude its use, with proper attribution, of course. Johntex\^talk 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say a cautious yes, but only if the group who did the poll is a respected neutral pollster. The public opinion is valid (and I am saying this as someone who disagrees with them). Sad mouse 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth including. First off, I don't see this garnering significant public attention. Second, the particular question ("Do you think tougher gun laws can help stop things like the Virginia Tech school shooting, or do you think the people who commit these kinds of acts will always find guns?") is a false dichotomy and thus a very poor question for a survey. Finally, I don't feel this is important enough to justify lengthening the gun control section(s) in this article; they're already way too long and off-topic, IMHO. --ElKevbo 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, biased question. Turn my cautious yes into a strong no. Sad mouse 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This might be a better poll because they ask the same question in a number of different ways (plus CBS/NYT is more reliable).... http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/poll-on-gun-control/

summary, most (two thirds) Americans want more gun control, but only a minority (one third) want a complete ban. And roughly the split was - extra gun laws would help (about a third), concealed weapons would have helped (about a third), neither extra gun laws nor extra concealed weapons would have helped (about a third). But the poll also shows this is pretty much the same as before, so we should not go into details in this article beyond saying (at the most) "the American public's opinion on gun laws remains as divided as prior to the event" or something. Certainly the poll above should not be used, because it only asks a pro-gun question, rather than the NYT which asks both a pro-gun and anti-gun question (and finds that a strong majority of Americans come against both) Sad mouse 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Wikipedia proved reliable in tragedy

Congratulations to those who have contributed to this article as your efforts have given significant credibility to Wikipedia:[2]

• Wikipedia serves as Internet news source on the Virginia Tech shootings
• Link by Link The Latest on Virginia Tech, From Wikipedia
• The Latest on Virginia Tech, From Wikipedia
• Wikipedia proved reliable in tragedy
• Wikipedia makes news

-- Jreferee 15:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In true Wikipedia fashion, I must caution that it's all the same story, picked up by multiple sources. And multiple citations don't necessarily add credibility. But that's a whole other discussion I suppose. --Crunch 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reprints of the same story reach different audiences and increase the fame/importance of the covered topic. The cited stories are recognition of efforts by the Wikipedia editors of this article that resulted in increasing the believability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia and that recognition has been spread to various geographic areas by multiple reprints of the same story. -- Jreferee 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Polytechnic Institute massacre???

For now, I have reverted the title change back to Virginia Tech massacre. This type of change needs to be discussed, first I think. More importantly, it needs to be attributable. I believe the most common usage in the media is Virginia Tech massacre, hence we must use that term as well. I'm open to counter-arguments, but please cite policy when you do so. Thanks. Ronnotel 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know google hits is a stupid metric, but FWIW, virginia tech massacre gets 2.5M hits, while virginia polytechnic institute massacre gets exactly 4. Ronnotel 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The legal name is "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University". The common name is "Virginia Tech". Their logo uses "VT" - an abbreviation derived from their common name. It makes little sense to use the organization's legal name in this context. We're not writing legal documents here. We're writing an encyclopedia article, and the key to good writing is clarity. Rklawton 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No one ever refers to it as Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Even my grandparents say Virginia Polytech or VPI. You're way off. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "You're way off" when you're all agreeing -Halo 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody calls it Virginia Polytech. It never has been called that. The only people who call it VPI are old people and UVA fans. (Somehow, UVA fans get a rise out of thinking of us as a midmajor. Whatever.) Every single media guide put out by the athletics department has a section called "Just Virginia Tech, please" that explains the proper name to use. See page 4 of [3] for a copy of this statement.

In 1970, the official name of the school was changed from "Virginia Polytechnic Institute" to "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University". "Virginia Tech" is a recognized "informal" name and, in the interest of not having to write out the full name everywhere, should be used in this article. Anyone changing the a reference to VPI should be politely notified of the correct name. --BigDT (416) 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is rediculous. I have changed all VPI references back to VT. Whoever made the change just did a blind search and replace. They changed it in interwiki links, the Commons link, and references (in other words, misquoting the source). There is no way that any such change was made in good faith. --BigDT (416) 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Side issue, but 'good faith' is a loaded term. Let's just say the changes were a bit on the bold side of the BRD cycle. Ronnotel 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Has whoever made this unilateral change been approached? I'd much rather tell them now why what they did isn't correct than have them show up in a few days and re-make the change. Natalie 23:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor'easter is not a formal term

Nor'easter is simply how a certain region pronounces the actual word northeaster. It's a slang term. Wikipedia should not adopt a colloquial New England dialect in a formally written encyclopedic article.

'Northeaster' is more accurate and more understandable to any reader outside the eastern United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.8.199 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

It's actually British English and OED-certified. See Nor'easter: The term "nor'easter" comes to American English by way of British English and the points of the compass and wind or sailing direction. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the first recorded use in the English language of the term "nore" ("north") in association with the points of the compass and wind direction is by Dekker in 1612 ("How blowes the winde Syr?" "Wynde! is Nore-Nore-West."), with similar uses occurring in 1688 (". . . Nore and Nore-West . . .") and in 1718 (". . . Nore-west or Nore-nore-west."). ...

As noted in a January 2006 editorial by William Sisson, editor of Soundings magazine, use of "nor'easter" to describe the storm system is common along the U.S. East Coast. Yet it has been asserted by some that "nor'easter" as a contraction for "northeaster" has no basis in regional New England dialect and is a "fake" word, which is a parochial view that neglects the little-known etymology and the historical maritime usage described above. --Dynaflow 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just realized how badly-written that explanation is. I'll do some copy-editing on the article later. To summarize the article's convoluted explanation, the term "nor'easter" is not, in fact, a contraction for "north-easter." The incorrect term "north-easter" is just a back-justification without etymological justification for why the much older and better-established word "nor'easter" looks and sounds weird. "Nor'easter" is the proper term for the type of storm in question, in any variety of English. --Dynaflow 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input from the OED. My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. gives both "nor'easter" and "northeaster" without comment (no mention of regional restrictions or "informality", and it's _certainly_ not "slang"). It _does_ give the definition at "northeaster", and "nor'easter" says simply "a northeaster". If both forms are acceptable in American English and only one ("nor'easter") is acceptable in British English, it's hard to make the case that we should use the less-common form on the weight of one reader's opinion that it sounds colloquial.216.52.69.217 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Website set up for Pictures around VA Tech after the massacre..

Visit the website here "After the VA Tech Massacre" for photo's that are being added to show more about the campus around VA Tech and the beauty there along with the sadness. Debbie M. 24.254.6.200 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to contribute photos that you personally photographed from your collection to Wikipedia? If so, please make an account and see Wikipedia:Fromowner. In order for Wikipedia to use an image, it has to be released under a free license - either under the GFDL or into the public domain - so nothing from your site can currently be used here, but if you would like to contribute one or more photos under a free license, they would be greatly appreciated. --BigDT (416) 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

motive: current phrasing in infobox

Currently the top infobox says:

Motive: Hatred against specific classes, revenge for prior bullying

I see these as gross assumptions. I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia and am finding it difficult to search the discussion archives for this topic. Was this motive arrived at through discussion? I note that the article on the Columbine shootings still says, "Motive: Unclear". Other views?Sfmammamia 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Sf - we should not be listing a motive until it is sourced. I have changed it back and would suggest that any unsourced changes to the motive be reverted. Natalie 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kangalert.com

An editor (perhaps more than one) keeps inserting a reference to Kangalert.com in the middle of the "Law enforcement response" subsection. The editor who has most recently inserted this link wrote on my Talk page that "i just came accross the link a few days ago in the news and thought it was pertinent there. I know it could appear as linkspam, but i figure people's lives could be at stake in the future if we DON'T include it."

I object to using this article as a means of advertising this or any other product. I have removed the reference several times and I ask editors to (a) cease from inserting this material and (b) remove it if it inserted again. Unless there is a clear connection between this company and this incident, it should not be in this article and certainly not slapped in the middle of that section. If there is such a connection that I have missed, I apologize. But right now it looks like old fashioned spam and unwelcome advertisement that has no place in this or any other encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. While the service may be legitimate, it'd be like posting a link to Geico on the Princess Diana web page. It's completely in poor taste. If your service is legitimate and useful there are more appropriate ways of getting the word out about it. Most obviously would be simply calling campuses and talking with administrators about their concerns. SteveRyherd 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I sent Spicynugget the gentlest possible warning about spamming. If the link continues to show up, escalate accordingly. --Dynaflow 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It showed up again today. We have our own bot-assisted spam list somewhere that we may need to put it on. --BigDT 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit not Censor

I respecfully disagree with ElKevbo, for I am in law enforcement and part of the problem that the Virginia Tech Administration and campus safety faced was there inability to communicate with the students in real - time. The kanga link does look like spam at first - but there are a few reasons it is not: I think there was something like a two hour delay before the students got an EMAIL. As editors of wikipedia it is our job to ensure that pertinent information is delivered to our readers, ESPECIALLY if it could save lives. We are not even sure that this incident is completely over, threats continue to surface nationwide [4].

Editors should insert the kanglink because:

 - students have a right to know about this type of company
 - law enforcement personell have the right to know about about this type of company
 - its not linkspam if we include other companies like kangalert who can notify students in the event of a crisis.
 - there is a clear connection between this company and the incident

its a bit like trying to talk about the world trade center incident without mentioning Guilianni. If we try to censor out Guilianni from 9-11 we have done our readers an injustice, just as if we try to censor kangalert. I am not saying that kangalert is the 07 equivilant of a Guilianni, I am saying it just looks suspicious when ElKevbo perhaps wants to supress information that could help.--65.214.112.56 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Your comparison is completely arguable. Guiliani has a place in an article about 9-11 because he played a central role in the aftermath as the mayor of New York. A "right to know," as you put it, does not extend to including, discussing, or referencing companies who provide related services. That's advertising, and wikipedia does not do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfmammamia (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I would agree, widespread WP policy is to remove references to commercial products, especially when they could be seen as an endorsement. I see nothing suspicious in ElKevbo's behavior, most Wikipedians are pretty aggressive about stomping on spam when they see it. Ronnotel 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By the anons logic we should have links to smoke detector companies in fire, for life jacket companies in boat, and for helmet companies in motorcycle. Natalie 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Kangalert. The main difference between Kangalert and ads for fire and smoke detectors is that people know about fire and smoke detectors and use them with religious fervor. University Administrations and Student advocate groups have no clue that Kangalert exists and can notify students on their cell phones instantly in the event of a crisis. If we fail to mention Kangalert, we have become so extreme in our anti-commerce view that we are threatening the lives of young people trying to learn. The more appropriate question probably, then is not whether or not to include Kangalert, but whether or not we as responsible editors should include, discuss, or reference companies that really could save lives. People already know about smoke detectors. People don't know about kangalert, and that is one of the reasons this crisis was so horrid. If we choose to taboo a company - just because its a company - it seems like a grave judgement error, and the blood of future students could be on our hands. Widespread WP policy is to remove references to commercial products, especially when they could be seen as an endorsement - that should be the case - in every case except for this case.67.184.156.250 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We can do without the spam. Mentioning the company by name in no way, shape, or form, is necessary to get the idea across. --BigDT 14:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is relevant information in the cited article, such as the fact that VT police had been investigating a text messaging system at the time of the incident. However, there's no mention of Kangalert by name, nor should there be in the article. Ronnotel 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a request to have Shadowbot blacklist this domain. That should take care of it. --BigDT 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. We should still look out for mentions of the company sans links, as the IPs agitating for its inclusion have yet to demonstrate any direct connection to this event. Natalie 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Or best wishes

All the graduating students here at bayview wish to send our thought' and prayers to the students and teacher's; Jason-Reigns, Alex-Vicman, Craig-Lewis, Katie-Osban, Timothy-Lane, Hector-Veluzua, Omar-Richardson, Matt-Petterson, Sean-Fritz, Olivia-Brown, Nick-Lumiski, Louie"Too-Tall"Bries, Otto.M.Smith, Veronica-White, Eric-Neirdon, Stacy-Weinberg, Tammie-Waylon, Harrold-Birch, Ellen-Blackwood, Corey-Dechins, Oscar-Perez and student counsel president Cindi-Poloso:The graduating class of 07: agian our best wishes. -Never forget, 4/16/07, VT stand strong! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bayview hs students (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I appreciate the thought, but does this really belong on the talk page? Ronnotel 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys may want to post this on Techsideline.com if you would like it to be seen by VT students and fans. --BigDT (416) 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[b] thanks for the suggestion's i hope we did'nt break any rules. love the site[/b]

Ohio State University reaction

An editor has repeatedly inserted text into the "Responses from other educational institutions" subsection about the reaction at Ohio State University. Other editors have repeatedly removed that text. The most recent version of the text in question reads:

The Ohio State University President Karen A. Holbrook released a statement that is linked from the university's homepage since the day of the shootings and that was sent out in a campuswide email to students and faculty on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 shortly before campus cable networks began practicing new emergency broadcast tests. She asserts that "Ohio State stands ready to provide any assistance to Virginia Tech that they may identify in the days to come." Furthermore, OSU police released information on their preparedness for dealing with similar situations that featured local news coverage and front page newspaper coverage.

I am one of the editors who has removed the text (twice, I think) and I have asked the editor who has inserted the text to please discuss this here on the Talk page. I assert that OSU's reaction is not sufficiently different from the reactions at hundreds of other institutions to warrant inclusion in this article. It is not enough that the president of OSU has offered to provide assistance as many other institutions have done likewise. Further, as OSU has not actually provided material support, it does not warrant inclusion along with other institutions who have.

I recognize that the inclusion of the Penn State tribute may be seen as contradictory to my position and I acknowledge the perceived disconnect. That material has already been considerably shortened from its original form but I would not object if someone were to remove it completely. That there is a very nice GFDL-licensed photograph of hundreds, perhaps thousands of PSU students actively participating in the described events makes it an attractive addition to this article. --ElKevbo 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this material more than once as well, although I did once attempt to paraphrase in line with the other material out in the interest of compromise. However, nothing I see in the cite seems noteworthy. I would also ask that anyone who wants to reinsert it please state your reasons for doing so here first so we can understand what it is that you think is noteworthy. Ronnotel 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but I would like to mention that the Ohio State response was featured on the front page of USA today. They showed a largge image with the OSU logo and the VT logo and the text read "Today we are all Hoakies". Thus, I would say that the Ohio State reaction seems to have recieved some prominent media attention. I have not seen a similarly prominent example with respects to any other school. Johntex\^talk 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The other universities listed are worded as if they offer support, which OSU HAS DONE! Thus, I kept the following:

The Ohio State University has offered "to provide any assistance to Virginia Tech that they may identify in the days to come."

The above is uniform with the other universities there, but as the person above me stated, OSU also appeared on the front page of USA Today and had various other events, discussions, activities, etc. that make the university's response more than minor and at least notable like those others mentioned. --Horace Horatius 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While OSU being listed on the front page of USA Today is notable, OSU is also one of the largest universities in the United States and has been in the news alot lately due to the success of their athletic programs. Unlike the other universities listed, OSU has not offered any actual support. Every other university has provided some sort of physical support. OSU simply has not and should not be included. The only thing OSU offered was a very strongly worded statement of support. 140.254.47.113 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how one can compare a statement offering assistance with the actual assistance given by the institutions listed (Penn State excluded). It seems like an inappropriate excuse to promote OSU. --ElKevbo 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And on that note I removed OSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and UVA's offers of support. I thought there was something in there about Wake, Clemson, and UVA actually providing support (i.e. sending counselors instead of just offering them) but I was mistaken. As we find citable evidence of institutions actually providing support, more info should be added. It seems like there are many institutions setting up special funds and collecting money to be donated to VT (similar to the already-documented pledge at ECU) and those should be documented in some manner, even if it's just to mention a few prominent examples. --ElKevbo 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The reaction of one of the largest univerisities in the country is relevant and notable. --164.107.223.217 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But there are 20 schools on the order of an Ohio State (Michigan, Texas, UF, etc). The PSU tribute is something phenominal ... and the ECU donation is significant given the size and that we are traditional rivals. If OSU's tribute is significant in and of itself ... ok ... but the size of the school doesn't alone make it significant. --BigDT 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Max Karson

There's an article on Max Karson, a university student expelled for comments on the massacre, at the University of Colorado. IT's currently at WP:AFD (Articles of Deletion), and some people say it should be merged here. Please leave your opinion. 132.205.44.134 22:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

victims myspace pages

recently, MyDeathSpace.com posted a list of the victims, including Ryan Clarke. the link is here. do you think we should post these? Nocarsgo 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The victims' personal web pages are not relevant to this article. Phony Saint 23:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace links are generally frowned upon, particularly in an article which is about an event that involved many people. The only situation I can think of where MySpace links might be okay is individual bios/band articles, but I'm really not sure if those are even considered acceptable. Natalie 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference issue with Korean reaction

The reference for the following paragraph doesn't support the statement (about the Korean car accident involving the US military vehicle):

There was later criticism of the Korean government's overly defensive posture, and some commentators contrasted the lack of a backlash in the U.S. to the Korean public's passionate response when a U.S. military vehicle in Korea accidentally killed two girls.

--Anchoress 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Scroll down to the paragraph that starts "Consider: in 2002, when a US military vehicle ran over two girls in a street, Koreans came out en masse to hold candles in protest outside the American embassy." Kransky 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it does now. ;-) But that wasn't the article that the link opened to when I posted the question. Anyways, fixed now. Thanks for notifying us. Anchoress 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Glorifying the murderer

The photo with 2 guns looks like a movie. Do we want more "stars" like this? I don't think we should participate in mass murderer's self-promotion. Even sensationalist media outlets that showed his video had second thoughts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction was it looked like a video game character. Considering the discussion surrounding our supposed culture of violence, I think it's extremely appropriate. 66.57.224.66 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) del

Anybody who sees that photo as a glorification while knowing who is portrayed in it is messed up in the head.--Svetovid 11:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not universal thing seen as glorifying, nor do we know what he would have considered glorifying, so I really don't think we can remove anything that may possibly be seen to be positive in any way. I, for one, think the photos he sent to NBC are really embarrassing, but that's just me. Natalie 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'Legal purchase'

Does anyone know if indeed the guns were purchased legally? I ask because I heard somewhere Cho lied on his background check about whether he had mental health issues. If he lied, the purchase was not legal. Might be a technicality, but even minor details are important in cases like these. 66.57.224.66 03:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) del

This New York Times article says that he should have been inelligible, but it sounds like it was a mistake on the part of the state of Virginia. Apparently there is a mismatch between Virginia law and federal law on what constitutes "adjudicated as a mental defective" and his court-ordered outpatient treatment wasn't registered in whatever database they check for gun purchases. They don't mention whether or not Cho lied on the application, but I'm guessing that he didn't given their focus on the missing information in the database. Natalie 13:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the questions on the form 4473 asks if the purchaser has ever been "committed to a mental institution". Answering in the affirmative means the dealer will decline the sale, so Cho therefore must have replied "no". I'm not sure what the process is for purchasing a firearm in a case where you'd have to answer "yes" to a question (like "have you been convicted of a felony") but the restriction no longer applies (like you have been pardoned). scot 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, but being ordered to undergo outpatient counseling and being committed to a mental institution are different things. Apparently, though, the federal law specifies having been "adjudicated a mental defective" and would have considered the judge-ordered outpatient counseling as such. The Virginia law, OTOH, didn't register that required counseling as an adjudification (word?) of mental defectivity, so he didn't show up when they checked their databases. The question on the form doesn't seem to cover all of the law, which is odd. Natalie 15:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean reaction

Shouldn't it be "South Korean reaction"? --Abe Lincoln 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, since the section only addresses reaction of South Korea. I`m not aware of any reaction from North Korea, and being more specific is good.--24.20.69.240 08:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed it. --Abe Lincoln 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree, but not very strongly. The thing is, South Korean is a modern political national identity, but Korean is an ethnic and historical identity, and Koreans are distressed about how ethnic Koreans might be perceived in America and around the world. This is a Korean reaction, not a "South Korean" reaction, even if the loudest voice on the issue comes from South Korea. Korean Americans who are not citizens of South Korea have similar feelings to those voiced by Roh and the prominent South Koreans quoted in the press. Still, I see the point of the current naming, as the section currently focuses on reactions from South Koreans. zadignose 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's very true, although only the government of South Korea has made any sort of formal statement, AFAIK. Natalie 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • and it would be POV to use the reaction of some ethnic Koreans to represent the hypothetical reaction of all ethnic Koreans. -- Jreferee 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this news has even reached the public of North Korea? 66.45.152.134 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

After Effects section

What's the purpose of this section? I would think that pretty much anything that could go in here would fit somewhere within the one the subsections in Responses. Anyone else feel the same? Ronnotel 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraq's reaction

I have stumbled upon a Yahoo! News Article last night, and it says that Iraqi students in Baghdad yesterday were deeply saddened by the tragic events at Virginia Tech. And to think that Saddam Hussein's regime and the post-Saddam era were bad enough. You should put that in one of the subsections in Responses, because here's the link if you want to find out more about it, alright? --Angeldeb82 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• There used to be a list of countries offering condolence with links to them[5] until it was removed by someone removed it. I can't be bothered arguing about it, so I'm not gonna re-add it -Halo 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)